A Security Council on the Run

By Ian Williams, AlterNet
Posted on February 27, 2003, Printed on May 27, 2012
http://www.alternet.org/story/15277/a_security_council_on_the_run

With its vaguely worded "second resolution" proposal for the UN Security Council, the United States is showing contempt for the UN and laying down a humiliating dare to any Council members who would defy it. If and when it is passed, it will also hand Washington's only real ally, Tony Blair, an opening to claim UN authorization for attacking Iraq -- although the proposed wording does no such thing.

Neither did the previous UN resolutions, by the way. The rest of the world never believed that either 687 (passed after the Gulf War) or the more recent 1441 gave the U.S. and the UK a right to attack Iraq. Before resolution 1441 was passed, the other members successfully insisted there should be another meeting of the Council to determine whether or not Iraq had culpably failed to cooperate with the UN inspectors. It was why the French at the time insisted there would have to be a second resolution to authorize force, since existing resolutions did not do so.

But the Anglo-American draft is certainly not the second resolution that Paris asked for. It does not specifically authorize force, nor indeed mention it. It merely notes that "Iraq has submitted a declaration pursuant to its resolution 1441 (2002) containing false statements and omissions and has failed to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, that resolution." The statement concludes that the Security Council "acting under Chapter VII of the charter of the United Nations, decides that Iraq has failed to take the final opportunity afforded to it in resolution 1441."

There is no explicit reference to the "serious consequences" threatened in 1441, let alone a definition of what they would be, or who is authorized to deliver these consequences. The wording leaves a lot of room for creative ambiguity, allowing Tony Blair to innocently describe the resolution as a "last push for peace."

The U.S. and the UK think they can browbeat Council members into supporting the resolution by saying it is not a war resolution, then use it as a carte blanche to start the war. Its allusive and elusive wording derives from Washington's insistence it can act under powers granted in the cease-fire resolution 687 passed after the Gulf War and that, in matters of "national interest," it has the right to do as it pleases.

The fate of the resolution is not going to change Washington's plans to attack Iraq. The U.S. and the UK have both told the Security Council they are going ahead with the war irrespective of what its members say. According to one diplomat quoted in the Washington Post, the U.S. Administration has told the other states, "That decision is ours, and we have already made it. It is already final. The only question now is whether the Council will go along with it or not."

There is, of course, the matter of disposing of the other alternatives on the council's table. The counterproposal made by France, Germany and Russia says, "(T)he military option should only be a last resort. So far, the conditions for using force against Iraq are not fulfilled: While suspicions remain, no evidence has been given that Iraq still possesses weapons of mass destruction or capabilities in this field." It says that there should be added efforts to reach a peaceful solution.

The counter-initiative does not preclude the use of force against Iraq, but effectively puts it on the backburner until mid-summer, when it is generally considered to be too hot to fight. Bush, unfortunately, is prepared to follow the dictates of the weather rather than heed the antiwar opinions of much of the rest of the world, as well as the pro-UN caution expressed by a majority of Americans.

The Canadian proposal, floated in the open Security Council debate a week ago is actually far more efficient than the French one, in every sense. It proposes that the inspectors set up a series of benchmarks the Iraqis have to meet, with a tight deadline set around the end of March. Failure to meet these assigned goals would trigger serious consequences.

This Canadian proposal is attracting a lot of support since it addresses the widespread perception among council members that Iraq is not cooperating "in substance," as the UN inspectors allege. If the U.S. and the UK were to back the Canadian proposal, it would win a majority on the Council and very likely avoid any vetoes. However, the U.S. has spurned the measure, thanks again to weather-related considerations.

But since the administration has decided it wants a second resolution as a fig leaf for a decision it has already made, Washington is resorting to diplomacy, Texas-style. While Turkey, adroitly exploiting its strategic position, is chewing on billions of juicy carrots, the rest of the world is getting the stick -- though in the case of the major players like Germany, Russia, and France, the big-stick approach has already provoked more resistance than cooperation. For example, sending uber-aggressive Undersecretary of State John Bolton to Moscow is the type of diplomacy that started the Hundred Years' War, not ended it.

Sadly, though, the stick does work well with many UN members, and the degree of resistance put up by a country is generally in inverse proportion to its GDP, but also strongly correlated with its trade ties to the United States. With Bulgaria, Washington emphasized the need for Senate authorization of its NATO membership. But if it toes the line, Bulgaria has also been promised that the new democratic and independent Iraq will pay off its pre-Gulf War debts. When Paris promptly pointed out the potential difficulties it may face in gaining entry into the European Union, the poor Bulgarians looked like rabbits caught in the headlights -- as indeed do many of their colleagues at the moment.

So will this resolution pass? Certainly not if it were a secret ballot! But even so, France has certainly sent a number of clear signals indicating its willingness to compromise. Neither French President Jacques Chirac nor Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin has rejected the military option. However, Washington is not interested in offering easy climb-downs for uppity Europeans and may yet provoke a very reluctant France to use its veto. If France does not veto the resolution, then the Russians and Chinese almost certainly will not do so.

In fact, Chirac is probably fervently hoping that Saddam Hussein refuses to destroy the Al-Samoud 2 missiles as ordered by Blix. It would provide a great opportunity to climb down from the pole of principle up which he has climbed, and which he can't otherwise slide down because of all the other countries that followed him up there!

So what is the timetable? The UK and US have graciously allowed the other members two weeks or so to regain their senses. Bush is going to war, possibly with the dubious authorization of the new resolution sometime in the middle of March, after Hans Blix reports back earlier in the month.

In the weeks of diplomatic posturing to come, it is important to keep in mind certain important facts. It does not really matter that the resolution does actually mention war, since like Humpty Dumpty, for this President, a resolution "means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less." Nor will it matter if the resolution fails to pass, because, as the same rotund pundit also said, "The question is, which is to be master -- that's all."

© 2012 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/15277/